shipping co.'s b/l

[NigelHolt]

Kim,

In the same way that a b/l appears to be signed by the ‘carrier’. In other words the b/l would have to appear to indicate the name of the vessel owner and to have been signed by that party etc. I would stress my intention is not to give a ‘copy and paste’ wording for a credit; obviously it needs careful thought.

With respect to the abominable TA572, I am sorry but I cannot see its relevance even if the conclusion you have drawn is correct.

Additional apologies but I do not see the relevance of ‘however named’ or MMTDs to the issue either, notwithstanding that what you say may well be correct also.

Overall, I can well understand applicants, or issuing banks lending against the security of goods, wishing to specify vessel owning carrier issued b/ls only. It ought to be quite easy to draft unambiguous and concise provisions in a credit that clearly achieve this. Unfortunately it seems that nonetheless a large number of issuing banks, mainly based in one region of the world, are unable to do so.

Hope you have a nice weekend too.

Jeremy

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy,

Sorry to keep pushing here … but I am trying to find head and tail in this.

First of all – I have been studying your postings today very carefully, and compared them with your previous postings. Especially the one from 6 December where you state that: “Clearly a document examiner cannot know if a B/L has been issued by a NVOCC”.
I can not see the line between this statement, and the view expressed that if “B/L issued by NVOCC not acceptable” is included in the credit, then it should appear from the document that the issuer is “vessel owner”; e.g. based on a certificate to that effect?

Secondly – I am not totally reluctant to the view, that it must appear from the B/L that it is issued by the vessel owner; but where does that come from. Do you have anything documenting this?

Thirdly – the reason to drag TA.572 into this was to state, that in the scenario where an article 23 B/L is required, and the credit states that “Forwarders B/L not acceptable”, then what the document checker is to do, is to verify that it is signed in accordance with article 23(a)(i) – i.e. as carrier.
And this is regardless if the document SCREAMS that it is issued by a freight forwarder - as long as it is in the capacity "as carrier".
So my point is that if your line of argumentation here was prevailing, then the B/L in the scenario should state that it was NOT a forwarders B/L. We all know that it did not do that … it did exactly the opposite.

Fourthly – my point with “however named” is that this makes it practically impossible to state what you want/do not want – and be sure to get it/not to get it.
Like the example with the “forwarders B/L not acceptable”. This will not protect you from getting a B/L issued by a forwarder. One main reason for that (as I see it) is that you are to examine the document according to article 23 – and that is it!
Following that line of argumentation; no matter what the credit states about a NVOCC, banks will disregard this, and look at the relevant article alone!

Points enough for one Friday

Best regards
Kim

[edited 12/16/2005 2:08:08 PM]

[NigelHolt]

Dear Kim,

Stop pushing! ;->

1. I am not now suggesting “B/L issued by NVOCC not acceptable” in a credit is acceptable. Quite the reverse. I am simply proposing possible ways whereby a credit may contain terms that actually do have the clear and unambiguous effect of requiring the presentation of APPARENTLY vessel owning carrier B/Ls, as a 'by product' excluding presentation of NVOCC b/ls. In other words, it is about including a ‘positive’ requirement (see 2. below for an example) rather than a ‘negative’ requirement, such as. ‘NVOCC [or ‘FREIGHT FORWARDER’] B/Ls NOT ALLOWED’. Thus the document examiner is only concerned -as usual- with appearance and not fact.

2. Sorry but I cannot see the relevance of ‘anything documenting this’. Are we perhaps talking at cross purposes? If one actually states in a credit that -for example- the b/l must be issued and signed by a carrier that is the vessel owner [i.e. there is not any reference to 'NVOCCs' or similar] then by definition the b/l presented must indicate the carrier is actually the vessel owner in order to comply. There is not any question of the document examiner having to, or even being entitled to, verify if the issuer is -as a question of fact- the owner of the vessel. Either the document alone indicates the carrier is the vessel owner (and thus is compliant) or it does not (and thus is not compliant).

3. I hope my 1 & 2 above render irrelevant discussion of TA572 or credits that simply states ‘FORWARDERS B/L NOT ACCEPTABLE’.

4. Sorry, but I do not accept “however named” makes it practically impossible to state what the TERMS of the document presented have to be.

Lastly, if you’re still not happy why not ring me?

Jeremy


[edited 12/16/2005 3:01:19 PM]

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy,

Bet you are not going to believe it; but I was quite pleased to read your last posting. I made me realize – what probably everyone knew already, that I had totally misunderstood your point
Communication is a hard thing – and I do apologize for that, and hope that I have not spoiled your weekend.

Suggest we take the “however named” topic at some other time

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

Dear Kim,

Glad we now see 'eye-to-eye'.

Incidentally, there is nothing to stop one overriding the 'however named''concession' expressly in the credit if it causes one concern.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

Regards, Jeremy

[POLTERD.]

i thank you all for your opinions.
i wish you a lovely merry christmas and the spirit of christmas to light your soul every moment of your life.
bogdan.